If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
I did post an error of fact about "$500,000 Delta pilot salary."
I hope this rectifies, clarifies, and satisfies, because I'm nearly mortified. BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK Delta Pilots Vote to Accept 32.5% Pay Cut E-Mail This Printer-Friendly Save Article By MICHELINE MAYNARD (NYT) 917 words Published: November 12, 2004 Pilots at Delta Air Lines overwhelmingly approved a new five-year contract yesterday with $1 billion in annual concessions sought by the airline, which had threatened to file for bankruptcy if the pilots did not acquiesce. The deal, which cuts pay by 32.5 percent, would reduce the salary of the highest-paid Delta pilot by more than $90,000, to about $185,000 a year. It ends an era of luxurious pilot pay in the airline industry, but does not end Delta's problems. Delta, the nation's third-largest airline, must still arrange new terms on its debt, slash its costs and carry out a strategy that it hopes will take it through the industry's gathering storm. ''There are no winners at this point,'' Delta's chief executive, Gerald A. Grinstein, said yesterday in a letter to pilots. ''We unfortunately remain in turbulent times.'' The pilots' vote simply allows Delta to ''back away from the cliff by several steps,'' said Philip A. Baggaley, an airline analyst with Standard & Poor's Ratings Services. The Air Line Pilots Association, which represents Delta's pilots, said the pact was approved by 79 percent of those voting. It said about 91 percent of its members at Delta cast ballots -- considered a high turnout in a union vote. Delta's pilots are the airline's only unionized labor group. But the stakes were high for both the pilots and Delta, which is based in Atlanta. The airline had threatened repeatedly to seek bankruptcy protection unless its pilots agreed to cut the wages and benefits that had made them the best paid in the airline industry. ''Our airline has been managed to the brink of bankruptcy and the Delta pilots had to decide between two bad choices,'' John Malone, chairman of the master executive council of the pilots' union, said in a statement yesterday. ''They chose the lesser of two evils.'' The union and the airline reached a tentative agreement on Oct. 28, hours after a deadline for a deal, set by Mr. Grinstein. When the two sides finally agreed, Delta's lawyers were waiting in New York for a telephone call from Atlanta authorizing them to file bankruptcy papers. ''This decision is meaningful to everyone at Delta,'' Mr. Grinstein said in his letter to the pilots. But he added, ''Delta must stay competitive with the marketplace if we are to survive and compete.'' Delta's most senior pilots, flying its biggest aircraft, earned as much as $287,000 a year. By contrast, JetBlue Airways, a low-fare carrier that does not have unions, pays a top salary of $108,000 a year. Pilots at American Airlines, United, Northwest Airlines and US Airways have all approved cuts in the last year; Continental Airlines is in talks with its pilots. Along with pay cuts, Delta will also freeze its traditional pension plan for pilots and replace it with a less-generous 401(k) plan. Delta will also require pilots to pay more for health care. Pilots will be given the right to purchase options on 30 million new Delta shares. Delta's salaried employees have already taken 10 percent pay cuts, while Mr. Grinstein took the equivalent of a 25 percent cut in September. The airline has said it plans to cut up to 7,000 jobs through 2006. Approval of the cuts by Delta's pilots allows Delta to conclude lending agreements with GE Capital Aviation Services and American Express Travel Related Services. The airline is also trying to persuade holders of $20 billion in debt to accept terms more favorable to Delta. It will get the results of that offer next week. On top of that, Delta has announced plans to fight both its big rivals and low-fare airlines that are taking bites out of its traditional strongholds in Atlanta and Florida. Early next year, it will adjust its schedules to focus more on direct flights from hubs in Atlanta, Cincinnati and Salt Lake City, and it will close its hub in Dallas. But if it cannot knit all those pieces together, analysts said, Delta could find itself again on the brink of Chapter 11. One tool the airline expects to lean upon more heavily is Song, the low-fare operation started by Delta last year, featuring lime-green Boeing 757 jets and uniforms designed by Kate Spade. Delta's precarious finances stalled Song's growth plans in 2003. But Delta plans to add a dozen more planes and new cities to Song's lineup next year. Derided in some aviation circles as a marketing gimmick, Song has to prove it can be consistent -- planes range from half-empty to nearly full and profits from minuscule to generous, depending on the route. Song does best on routes to Florida, and worst to Las Vegas, people inside the airline with knowledge of its operations said. Delta has never broken out separate results for Song. Another of the industry's troubled airlines, US Airways, reached deals with lenders and lease holders that will allow it to keep flying most of its aircraft, although it said leases on four of its 282 planes were likely to be rejected. On Sept. 12, US Airways filed for bankruptcy protection for the second time in two years. Advertisement Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Home | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert J Carpenter" wrote in message ... "James Robinson" wrote in message . 97.142... ALL SNIPPED. I find it interesting that US Air(ways)'s route structure is not all that different from Eastern's ... with the additon of a few European flights and without the Caribbean dominance. But the circumstances surrounding US Airways' problems and what killed Eastern are different. Low Cost Carriers were not such a force in the period leading up to Eastern's 1991 shutdown. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert J Carpenter" wrote:
I find it interesting that US Air(ways)'s route structure is not all that different from Eastern's ... with the additon of a few European flights and without the Caribbean dominance. It stands to reason, given that Piedmont, now part of US Airways, served many of the same cities as Eastern, but not necessarily the same routes. When Eastern packed it in, it was a fairly easy expansion to add the old Eastern routes to the Piedmont network. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Jeff Hacker" wrote:
"Robert J Carpenter" wrote I find it interesting that US Air(ways)'s route structure is not all that different from Eastern's ... with the additon of a few European flights and without the Caribbean dominance. But the circumstances surrounding US Airways' problems and what killed Eastern are different. Low Cost Carriers were not such a force in the period leading up to Eastern's 1991 shutdown. On the contrary. One of Eastern's major problems was that they had taken on a fare war with People Express, significantly adding to Eastern's debt load. PE started head-to-head service at cut rates on Eastern's bread-and-butter leisure routes between the Northeast and Florida. Eastern had been trying to expand their network to make themselves large enough to compete, but incurred costs in acquiring Braniff's South American routes and establishing a hub in Kansas City. Those costs added to the cost of fighting off People Express are what set the stage for Eastern's problems. When the travel market dropped along with revenue, with the start of the first Gulf war, they couldn't meet the necessary cash flows. The situation today isn't much different. The legacy carriers cannot sustain their costs and debt against the lower cost of the newer carriers. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Reef Fish" wrote:
Again, to re-iterate, Robert Cohen started this thread saying Eastern's surmise was easy to predict because it was overpaying the pilots and a few other extravagent spendings. I disagreed, in general principle, on the Free Market principle that no salary is too high, and cited examples in sports where the teams didn't go bankrupt because they pay some players millions of dollars a year -- which *I* think is ridiculous, but that's what the market will bear. Not entirely. Many of the weaker teams cannot afford the higher salaries of the star players. Even with a redistribution of broadcast income, they may not be able to survive. A recent example was the sale of the Montreal Expos, which could not generate sufficient income to pay the salaries of really good players. They would lose any standouts to higher paying teams, leaving them with second string players. Again, in GENERAL principle, any business that fails ultimately can be blamed on the owner of the business (or its management). Perhaps in a general sense, but there are examples which defy the rule: The management of transatlantic steamship companies could do very little to counter the introduction of the jet airliner. The rules of the game changed overnight, and they lost the majority of their passengers just that fast. No reduction in fares would have been sufficient to retain the business. James blames it all on deregulation. That's a bit too black and white, though I certainly feel that deregulation was the root of their problems. They fell sooner than other airlines because of bad timing and bad luck, which has some management overtones. While a different management strategy might have helped somewhat, it would have only delayed the inevitable. A company like Eastern could not change quickly enough to react to the effect of deregulation. If it were a completely deregulated industry, then it would have been the Free Market, and that would be the perfect business environment for competition and survival of the fittest. Unfortunately the deregulation is only PARTIAL, and the airlines are subject to all kinds of regulations which restricted their "free" choices! Again, the rules can change fast enough that they still can't compete. Airlines like Eastern were sitting fat and happy under regulation. They had cost structures that matched the business at that time. Aircraft fleets were shaped to their business, with associated long-term debt repayments. Union agreements were made based on anticipated incomes. Passenger amenities were provided based on the competition at the time. Streamlining that historic cost structure is not something that happens overnight, even if the management recognizes that it is necessary for survival. I am somewhat sympathetic to the theory of blaming it all on the change of rules that is bring down the entire airline industry, leaving no airline unscathed. If that WERE the case, then the airlines themselves are to blame for the collective stupidity of not getting OUT of competition that kills everyone, winner and loser! There is no regulation against an airline selling itself (while it was still profitable) and get into other industries of better fair-competitions among large and small companies. It was too late to get out. Once deregulation established the lower cost, all of the airline's assets devalued to the point where the companies were defacto in bankruptcy. All they could do is cut and run, but that also assumes that the management of the company has the benefit of seeing what eventually happened to the industry. Eastern, and their shareholders, thought they could survive by expanding to gain a critical mass that would support their high cost structure. Therefore, their options were to declare immediate bankruptcy, or try the alternative of growing to profitability. The tried the latter, and the financial downturn of the Gulf war was their eventual undoing. To me, that's the bottom line of "the buck stops at the Management". That's very convenient, and simple to say, but luck also enters into the picture. Business is usually a gamble, and certainly never a sure thing. Some people take the risk and win, others lose. If they only ever bet on the sure things, our economy would be dead. Hero or goat, the glory or blame goes to the decision maker. That's what capitalism is about. However, there are also those who begrude the winners the glory when they make it big. Look at the oil companies and their profits. That's how K-Mart, S-Mart, and other Marts all lost to the better-managed Wal-Mart. Walmart didn't get big (like American) overnight. It just grew by leaps and bounds because of better choice of products, better layout for that kind of market, etc. It's unfair competition to other retail store NOW -- that's for sure! Nothing unfair about it. That is how all business operates. WalMart simply is winning by a better strategy and deserve credit for their accomplishment. Unlike the airline industry, they did not sweep over their competitors because of a parallel to airline deregulation. Rather than a revolution, the retail industry simply evolved. I am back to the Free Market principle via the same route! Every business has a CHOICE to compete or not, or how to compete, in an unregulated market seemingly dominated by one BigBoy. The computer and software industry seems to be doing quite well, with many companies going down the tubes against Big Blue or Microshaft, while other companies are competing successfully in the industry dominated (past or present) by those Big Boys. Untimately the one-time Big Boy of Big Blue had to re-evaluate its market to start as a Little Boy to compete against Bill Gate's Big Boy. That's the way free competition should be. The USA is hardly a perfect Free Market, but is about as good as it gets, in practice. That's nice to say in theory, but it is rarely the case in a high capital cost industry like transportation. Classic textbooks on transportation economics describe how a certain amount of regulation is necessary to keep such businesses from engaging in destructive competition. In an effort to provide any contribution to their capital cost, they will slash fares to barely above their marginal cost of business, and ensure that nobody makes a decent return on their investment. With no regulation, the transportation industry will tend to form natural monopolies, which is equally undesireable. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"James Robinson" wrote in message . 97.142... "Robert J Carpenter" wrote: I find it interesting that US Air(ways)'s route structure is not all that different from Eastern's ... with the additon of a few European flights and without the Caribbean dominance. It stands to reason, given that Piedmont, now part of US Airways, served many of the same cities as Eastern, but not necessarily the same routes. When Eastern packed it in, it was a fairly easy expansion to add the old Eastern routes to the Piedmont network. US Airways acquired Piedmont in 1987. Eastern shut down in 1991. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
James Robinson wrote: "Reef Fish" wrote: Again, to re-iterate, Robert Cohen started this thread saying Eastern's surmise was easy to predict because it was overpaying the pilots and a few other extravagent spendings. I disagreed, in general principle, on the Free Market principle that no salary is too high, and cited examples in sports where the teams didn't go bankrupt because they pay some players millions of dollars a year -- which *I* think is ridiculous, but that's what the market will bear. Not entirely. Many of the weaker teams cannot afford the higher salaries of the star players. Even with a redistribution of broadcast income, they may not be able to survive. A recent example was the sale of the Montreal Expos, which could not generate sufficient income to pay the salaries of really good players. They would lose any standouts to higher paying teams, leaving them with second string players. Again, in GENERAL principle, any business that fails ultimately can be blamed on the owner of the business (or its management). Perhaps in a general sense, but there are examples which defy the rule: The management of transatlantic steamship companies could do very little to counter the introduction of the jet airliner. The rules of the game changed overnight, and they lost the majority of their passengers just that fast. No reduction in fares would have been sufficient to retain the business. Reduction in fares would not have worked. Perhaps, however, rethinking the business plan and trying to consider how to redeploy their assets might have managed a much better 60s. They were quite wedded to the transportation model and loth to try the Cruise model. snip |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
James Robinson wrote: "Reef Fish" wrote: Again, to re-iterate, Robert Cohen started this thread saying Eastern's surmise was easy to predict because it was overpaying the pilots and a few other extravagent spendings. I disagreed, in general principle, on the Free Market principle that no salary is too high, and cited examples in sports where the teams didn't go bankrupt because they pay some players millions of dollars a year -- which *I* think is ridiculous, but that's what the market will bear. Not entirely. Many of the weaker teams cannot afford the higher salaries of the star players. Even with a redistribution of broadcast income, they may not be able to survive. A recent example was the sale of the Montreal Expos, which could not generate sufficient income to pay the salaries of really good players. They would lose any standouts to higher paying teams, leaving them with second string players. That's PRECISELY how the FREE MARKET principle works at its best! No salary is too high for THOSE who can afford to pay, and they DO. When a midget tries to act like a giant, in business, that's exactly what "mis-management" is about! You have in fact exemplified my point. Again, in GENERAL principle, any business that fails ultimately can be blamed on the owner of the business (or its management). Perhaps in a general sense, but there are examples which defy the rule: The management of transatlantic steamship companies could do very little to counter the introduction of the jet airliner. The rules of the game changed overnight, and they lost the majority of their passengers just that fast. No reduction in fares would have been sufficient to retain the business. How did they DEFY the rule? The wise management would have immediately gotten OUT of playing the game! Reduction of fares would be wishful thinking and just another example of mis-management! No different in the case of horse-and-buggy business when automobiles changed the rule of the game. They are still IN BUSINESS, but pretty much limited to the tourist rides in Central Parks and other amusement markets and the regular market for the Amish (in the USA) who have not yet yielded to the modern evils of using electricity, automobiles, and other things we call necessities. James blames it all on deregulation. That's a bit too black and white, Agreed. I could have changed "all" to "mostly" and it might have been a more accurate characterization, except what I read was ALL blamed on dereg. though I certainly feel that deregulation was the root of their problems. They fell sooner than other airlines because of bad timing and bad luck, which has some management overtones. While a different management strategy might have helped somewhat, it would have only delayed the inevitable. A company like Eastern could not change quickly enough to react to the effect of deregulation. If it were a completely deregulated industry, then it would have been the Free Market, and that would be the perfect business environment for competition and survival of the fittest. Unfortunately the deregulation is only PARTIAL, and the airlines are subject to all kinds of regulations which restricted their "free" choices! Again, the rules can change fast enough that they still can't compete. The Free Market principle is MORE than just how to compete! It partly entails jumping out of a boat that's rapidly heading down the Niagara Falls! I am somewhat sympathetic to the theory of blaming it all on the change of rules that is bring down the entire airline industry, leaving no airline unscathed. If that WERE the case, then the airlines themselves are to blame for the collective stupidity of not getting OUT of competition that kills everyone, winner and loser! There is no regulation against an airline selling itself (while it was still profitable) and get into other industries of better fair-competitions among large and small companies. It was too late to get out. Once deregulation established the lower cost, all of the airline's assets devalued to the point where the companies were defacto in bankruptcy. I don't think that was true -- that it was a sudden catastrophy that put all the airlines in defacto bankrupcy. Even if it WERE, it would have been the time to bail out, rather than hang on futilely for the inevitable. Look at it this way. If ALL of the airline except ONE bailed out immediately, don't you think that surviving airline would have been the surviver today? UNLESS of course some NEW airline (in the Free Market) found the Achille's heel? All they could do is cut and run, Then that's what they should have done! but that also assumes that the management of the company has the benefit of seeing what eventually happened to the industry. Eastern, and their shareholders, thought they could survive by expanding to gain a critical mass that would support their high cost structure. Then the shareholders CONTRIBUTED to the mismanagement. I owned at least 10,000 shares of Eastern at the time if was still worth $7 or $8 a share. I bailed out. Not sure how much I lost in that investment. BUt it sure was better than waiting until Eastern was belly up completely. :-) Therefore, their options were to declare immediate bankruptcy, or try the alternative of growing to profitability. The tried the latter, and the financial downturn of the Gulf war was their eventual undoing. To me, that's the bottom line of "the buck stops at the Management". That's very convenient, and simple to say, but luck also enters into the picture. Business is usually a gamble, and certainly never a sure thing. Some people take the risk and win, others lose. If they only ever bet on the sure things, our economy would be dead. Of course all businesses are GAMBLES. That's the "axiom". I stressed that point in my teaching of statistics, risks, and I used that axiom against those ignorant preacher who equates gambling to "sin" while the church engages in all kinds of business gambles in "investment". :-) Hero or goat, the glory or blame goes to the decision maker. That's what capitalism is about. However, there are also those who begrude the winners the glory when they make it big. Look at the oil companies and their profits. So what's your point. It's interesting that I think we see eye-to-eye on what BUSINESS is all about -- undertainties, gambles, ... yet we DIFFER on how one can GET OUT (or BAIL OUT) of a sinking ship -- which is always ONE of the available decisions -- to abandon ship before it's completely sunk. That's how K-Mart, S-Mart, and other Marts all lost to the better-managed Wal-Mart. Walmart didn't get big (like American) overnight. It just grew by leaps and bounds because of better choice of products, better layout for that kind of market, etc. It's unfair competition to other retail store NOW -- that's for sure! Nothing unfair about it. That is how all business operates. WalMart simply is winning by a better strategy and deserve credit for their accomplishment. Unlike the airline industry, they did not sweep over their competitors because of a parallel to airline deregulation. Rather than a revolution, the retail industry simply evolved. What's fair and unfair is of course in the eyes of the beholder. I call it "unfair" because the VOLUME discounts Walmart gets from the manufacturers that are NOT available to mom-and-pop stores makes it "unfair" to the small retailers of the same products! OTOH, I AGREE with you that it is FAIR in the "survival of the fittest" though somewhere alone the line we would get into the gray areas of "monopoly" and Uncle Sam would again have to stick its nose in the bidness as it did in the airline and other bidnesses. I am back to the Free Market principle via the same route! Every business has a CHOICE to compete or not, or how to compete, in an unregulated market seemingly dominated by one BigBoy. The computer and software industry seems to be doing quite well, with many companies going down the tubes against Big Blue or Microshaft, while other companies are competing successfully in the industry dominated (past or present) by those Big Boys. Untimately the one-time Big Boy of Big Blue had to re-evaluate its market to start as a Little Boy to compete against Bill Gate's Big Boy. That's the way free competition should be. The USA is hardly a perfect Free Market, but is about as good as it gets, in practice. That's nice to say in theory, but it is rarely the case in a high capital cost industry like transportation. snip Any mention of theory vs practice always reminded me of one Flash Gordon (his real name) whom I met in 1993: To quote Flash Gordon, M.D., who posted these immortal words in his .sig, in 1993: FG in theory, there is no difference between FG theory and practice. but in practice, there is. FG flash gordon, m.d. Flash is a PRACTICAL Man (and M.D.) of many interests: http://www.motosites.com/Detailed/396.html and I believe both he and his wife are practicing M.D.s in San Francisco now. -- Bob. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Airline Biz Crisis: Not Difficult To Predict
"Frank F. Matthews" wrote:
James Robinson wrote: Perhaps in a general sense, but there are examples which defy the rule: The management of transatlantic steamship companies could do very little to counter the introduction of the jet airliner. The rules of the game changed overnight, and they lost the majority of their passengers just that fast. No reduction in fares would have been sufficient to retain the business. Reduction in fares would not have worked. Perhaps, however, rethinking the business plan and trying to consider how to redeploy their assets might have managed a much better 60s. They were quite wedded to the transportation model and loth to try the Cruise model. They did embrace the cruise model. Many of the transatlantic ships at the time were specifically designed to be deployed to the Carribean or Mediterranean in the winter. There just wasn't the market then that there is now, so there was a limit to how many ships could survive competing for a limited number of tourists. The cruise market didn't really take off until cheap fares became available with airline deregulation. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Airline information on-line on the Internet FAQ | John R. Levine | Air travel | 0 | September 18th, 2005 11:00 AM |
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ | Edward Hasbrouck | Air travel | 0 | February 16th, 2004 11:03 AM |
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ | Edward Hasbrouck | Air travel | 0 | January 16th, 2004 10:20 AM |
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ | Edward Hasbrouck | Air travel | 0 | December 15th, 2003 10:48 AM |
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ | Edward Hasbrouck | Air travel | 0 | November 9th, 2003 10:09 AM |